(02-14-2022 05:07 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  That modular component was one thing I actually liked about the LCS. What I never understood is why weren't the "modules" simply based on the best operational tech available at the time so we know the modules would work and be effective. If they needed to be upgraded later on---well---that was kinda the whole point of the modular concept. It would be fairly easy to just modernize the module with the new tech without having to spend a fortune building a whole new ship. That idea actually makes some sense to me.

The problem is that none of the modules ever worked, because instead of taking existing systems that worked, as you describe, they tried to re-invent the wheel. That plus the fact that the ASW module was never going to work because the engines were so noisy that they blanked out the sonar.

The other thing that I found odd is that for a supposed littoral combat ship, they really weren't very good at anything relating to littorals or combat. What you want in a littoral combatant is gunfire support of operations ashore, shallow water ASW, and mine countermeasures (MCM). The 57mm popgun is pretty useless for gunfire support, the engine noise problem pretty much precludes ASW, shallow water or otherwise, and the MCM module never even sniffed working. What the LCSs can do is go fast, and a minefield is the last place on earth that you want to go fast.

Denmark has actually achieved some success with modules in its Absalon class multi-mission ships and Ivor Huitfeldt class frigates. But the USN has not.

Good news! The US Navy has recovered our crashed fighter jet from the South China sea -

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-60607784

(02-17-2022 10:02 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-14-2022 05:07 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  That modular component was one thing I actually liked about the LCS. What I never understood is why weren't the "modules" simply based on the best operational tech available at the time so we know the modules would work and be effective. If they needed to be upgraded later on---well---that was kinda the whole point of the modular concept. It would be fairly easy to just modernize the module with the new tech without having to spend a fortune building a whole new ship. That idea actually makes some sense to me.

The problem is that none of the modules ever worked, because instead of taking existing systems that worked, as you describe, they tried to re-invent the wheel. That plus the fact that the ASW module was never going to work because the engines were so noisy that they blanked out the sonar.

The other thing that I found odd is that for a supposed littoral combat ship, they really weren't very good at anything relating to littorals or combat. What you want in a littoral combatant is gunfire support of operations ashore, shallow water ASW, and mine countermeasures (MCM). The 57mm popgun is pretty useless for gunfire support, the engine noise problem pretty much precludes ASW, shallow water or otherwise, and the MCM module never even sniffed working. What the LCSs can do is go fast, and a minefield is the last place on earth that you want to go fast.

Denmark has actually achieved some success with modules in its Absalon class multi-mission ships and Ivor Huitfeldt class frigates. But the USN has not.

Im guessing (and thats all it is) that the Navy has got at least two of the modules to work properly as they intend to put the NSM launchers on 31 of the LCS's. Then 15 of those will be fitted with the anti-mine module while 15 others will get the anti-submarine module. Supposedly---this will all be done over the next 18 months (meaning it should be halfway done as the article is from almost a year ago).

https://breakingdefense.com/2021/04/navy...bat-ships/

(03-03-2022 08:53 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Im guessing (and thats all it is) that the Navy has got at least two of the modules to work properly as they intend to put the NSM launchers on 31 of the LCS's. Then 15 of those will be fitted with the anti-mine module while 15 others will get the anti-submarine module. Supposedly---this will all be done over the next 18 months (meaning it should be halfway done as the article is from almost a year ago).
https://breakingdefense.com/2021/04/navy...bat-ships/

At this point, the USN is just doing anything it can to justify an incredible waste of money. The problem with the approach you are suggesting is that the anti-mine and anti-submarine modules don't work.

(03-03-2022 10:16 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(03-03-2022 08:53 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Im guessing (and thats all it is) that the Navy has got at least two of the modules to work properly as they intend to put the NSM launchers on 31 of the LCS's. Then 15 of those will be fitted with the anti-mine module while 15 others will get the anti-submarine module. Supposedly---this will all be done over the next 18 months (meaning it should be halfway done as the article is from almost a year ago).
https://breakingdefense.com/2021/04/navy...bat-ships/

At this point, the USN is just doing anything it can to justify an incredible waste of money. The problem with the approach you are suggesting is that the anti-mine and anti-submarine modules don't work.

To be clear, its not my plan. It was apparently the current Navy plan presented to Congress last April. Thats why I was "guessing" they must have at least those two modules working. Otherwise---how could they possibly suggest they would have it installed in all 31 vessels within just 18 months?

That said, as a tax payer---it would not hurt my feelings if they figured out a way to get something out of them. My preferred "plan" would be to install at least 8 VLS cells on them so they at least have some reasonable ability to defend themselves. With 8 cells, they could have 16 ESSM's and still have 4 cells left for Tomahawks or additional ESSM's. That, plus the 8 NSM would at least give them some fairly dangerous striking capability along with a mid-range anti-air bubble to augment their close in protective systems. I'd also like to see them get "smart shells" for their main gun and some sort of long range highly capable VTOL autonomous drone like the Bell 247. Thirty LCS's with those features--given their speed (assuming the engine fix is legit)---could be very useful in an battlefield environment where satellite info is the first casualty (better than the useless nothings they are now).

WASHINGTON: The Navy plans to put its new Naval Strike Missile on 31 of its 35 Littoral Combat ships over the next 18 months, while outfitting 15 ships with an anti-submarine module, and 15 others with anti-mine capabilities.

That breakneck pace of the proposed LCS upgrades is the clearest sign yet of the Navy’s concern over its being outgunned by the Chinese surface navy, and the premium being placed on keeping eye on new generations of capable Chinese and Russian submarines prowling below.

The new details were offered by Adm. Mike Gilday in testimony before the House Appropriations defense subcommittee, representing his most ambitious public comments concerning the LCS fleet to date.

Navy Will Install Hypersonic Missiles Aboard Zumwalt Destroyers Without Removing Gun Mounts

Quote:WASHINGTON, D.C. — There’s enough space and weight margin aboard the Zumwalt-class destroyers to install two tubes for hypersonic missiles without removing the ship’s 155mm gun mounts, Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Mike Gilday told USNI News last month.

By 2025, the first 16,000-ton Zumwalt-class destroyer will have at least two sets of missile tubes inserted on the port and starboard sides of the ship without having to remove the guns mounts, he said.

“There’s plenty of room right now for those modules,” Gilday told USNI News during a visit to General Dynamics Electric Boat.

The trio of guided-missile destroyers will be the first Navy platforms to field the Conventional Prompt Strike weapons as part of the Zumwalts refocus as a blue-water strike platform.

“Zumwalt gave us an opportunity to get [hypersonics] out faster and to be honest with you I need a solid mission for Zumwalt,” Gilday said.

The weapon is the Common Hypersonic Glide Body (C-HGB) developed for the Army, Air Force and the Navy.

“With respect to the weapon, we’re hand in glove with the Army so it’s going to be the same weapon,” Gilday said last week during the McAleese Conference.

The Army is set to field the C-HGB next year, ahead of the Zumwalts in 2025 and the Virginia-class Block V nuclear attack boats in 2028.

The three-ship Zumwalt-class — USS Zumwalt (DDG-1000), USS Michael Monsoor (DDG-1001) and Lyndon B. Johnson (DDG-1002) – were designed around two large 155mm gun mounts that would launch rocket-assisted projectiles more than 70 nautical miles to support forces ashore. However, the Navy canceled plans to buy the specialized ammunition over cost.

In 2017, the Navy decided to place an emphasis on turning the ships into a strike platform and leaving the guns aboard.

The hypersonic weapons on the ships will be fielded in a variant of the Multiple All-up-round Canisters (MAC) system. MAC tubes were for the Ohio-class nuclear guided-missile submarines

The MAC tubes on the four SSGNs put seven Tomahawk Land Attack Missiles (TLAM) in the same space of a Trident-II D5 nuclear ballistic missile. The Navy will put three of the larger C-HGBs larger in the same space, USNI News understands.

The same hypersonic missile configuration will be used on the Block V Virginia-class attack submarines

The third Zumwalt, Johnson, left General Dynamics Bath Iron Works in January to transit to Huntington Ingalls Industries for its combat system activation.

(03-16-2022 02:05 PM)CrimsonPhantom Wrote:  Navy Will Install Hypersonic Missiles Aboard Zumwalt Destroyers Without Removing Gun Mounts

Quote:WASHINGTON, D.C. — There’s enough space and weight margin aboard the Zumwalt-class destroyers to install two tubes for hypersonic missiles without removing the ship’s 155mm gun mounts, Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Mike Gilday told USNI News last month.

By 2025, the first 16,000-ton Zumwalt-class destroyer will have at least two sets of missile tubes inserted on the port and starboard sides of the ship without having to remove the guns mounts, he said.

“There’s plenty of room right now for those modules,” Gilday told USNI News during a visit to General Dynamics Electric Boat.

The trio of guided-missile destroyers will be the first Navy platforms to field the Conventional Prompt Strike weapons as part of the Zumwalts refocus as a blue-water strike platform.

“Zumwalt gave us an opportunity to get [hypersonics] out faster and to be honest with you I need a solid mission for Zumwalt,” Gilday said.

The weapon is the Common Hypersonic Glide Body (C-HGB) developed for the Army, Air Force and the Navy.

“With respect to the weapon, we’re hand in glove with the Army so it’s going to be the same weapon,” Gilday said last week during the McAleese Conference.

The Army is set to field the C-HGB next year, ahead of the Zumwalts in 2025 and the Virginia-class Block V nuclear attack boats in 2028.

The three-ship Zumwalt-class — USS Zumwalt (DDG-1000), USS Michael Monsoor (DDG-1001) and Lyndon B. Johnson (DDG-1002) – were designed around two large 155mm gun mounts that would launch rocket-assisted projectiles more than 70 nautical miles to support forces ashore. However, the Navy canceled plans to buy the specialized ammunition over cost.

In 2017, the Navy decided to place an emphasis on turning the ships into a strike platform and leaving the guns aboard.

The hypersonic weapons on the ships will be fielded in a variant of the Multiple All-up-round Canisters (MAC) system. MAC tubes were for the Ohio-class nuclear guided-missile submarines

The MAC tubes on the four SSGNs put seven Tomahawk Land Attack Missiles (TLAM) in the same space of a Trident-II D5 nuclear ballistic missile. The Navy will put three of the larger C-HGBs larger in the same space, USNI News understands.

The same hypersonic missile configuration will be used on the Block V Virginia-class attack submarines

The third Zumwalt, Johnson, left General Dynamics Bath Iron Works in January to transit to Huntington Ingalls Industries for its combat system activation.

You'd think the silly thing would have at least a conventional or guided shell to fire out of its 155mm guns by now. Apparently, it cant fire the standard NATO or US 155 rounds---so its ammo will always be some special round. Given that logistics matter in war time----its hard to believe nobody thought it would be a good idea to design the big guns to accept both the standard NATO 155mm artillery round as well as the specially designed LRLAP round (a high tech guided round with almost a 70 mile range) so it would be easy to rearm in wartime.

SECNAV Del Toro: Navy Will Not Need to Build Fuel Facilities to Replace Red Hill Fuel Depot

Quote:WASHINGTON, D.C. — The Navy’s solution to supplying its ships and aircraft with fuel in the Pacific after shutting down the Red Hill depot in Hawaii will likely not involve building additional fuel storage facilities, Navy Secretary Carlos Del Toro said Wednesday.

There are other storage facilities that exist in the Pacific already that can be used to store the fuel the sea service kept at Red Hill since World War II, Secretary of the Navy Carlos Del Toro said during remarks at the McAleese Conference.

“I spent a lot of time just talking about the relationship between partners and allies,” Del Toro said. “And we have the locations necessary to distribute that fuel effectively, without building an enormous number of additional fuel farms for example.”

The Pentagon announced March 7 that Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin elected to shut down the Red Hill Fuel Depot, a reversal on the previous plan to appeal a decision to close it.

Operations at Red Hill had been suspended since November when fuel leaked into drinking water used by Hawaii citizens and military families. The Hawaii Department of Health then issued an emergency order in December calling for the tanks, which can hold 250 million gallons of fuel, to be drained.

The decision to shutter Red Hill came after a review of the facility’s future, USNI News previously reported.

“Since late January 2022, we have been on an aggressive schedule to analyze and determine the distribution of fuel reserves for our operations in the Pacific theater,” Austin said in his March 7 statement. “This work has been evidence-based and fully aligns with our focus on the population, the environment, and national security.”

The Pentagon has spent the past three months looking at Red Hill and what it could do with the fuel depot to better position the sea service, Del Toro said. The assessment found it would give the U.S. a strategic advantage for the Navy to store fuel in a variety of land and sea facilities, instead of in one place.

“What might have made sense, perhaps during the days of World War II, given the threats that we face today, it doesn’t make sense now,” Del Toro said.

One place that the Navy could look at is Alaska, said Rep. Rob Wittman, (R-Va.), who also spoke at McAleese. Anchorage, Alaska, is closer than O’ahu, he said, which might make it a better location for the fuel storage.

Wittman raised concerns about the decision to shut down Red Hill without ensuring a fuel source.

“Let me tell you, we better be doggone confident that we have fuel in other places around the Pacific Rim to make sure we have it,” Wittman said.

Before the Red Hill is defueled, Wittman wants to see the plan for how the DoD will handle the volume from the facility. The transition needs to be smooth, he said.

The fuel will not be leaving Red Hill any time soon, as the next deadline is May 31, in which Austin will receive a plan of action for defueling, according to his memo.

The Pentagon and the Navy are planning for the facility to be fully shuttered in about a year.

Navy looking to retire as many as 10 Freedom class Littoral Combat Ships by 2023---despite the oldest active duty unit being only 7 years old. The big issue is excessive failures in the "combining gear" that allows its gas turbine and traditional diesel engines to combine their thrust to reach the high speeds that were the ships big selling point. The Navy has refused to accept delivery of any more vessels that were built with this flaw. While there is now a "fix" for the combining gear---its expensive and would take years to implement across the fleet of LCS Freedom class vessels.

Turns out, even if the gear is fixed---there other issues---so it looks like the Navy is finally throwing in the towel on the Freedom class as they are complicated to maintain and cost nearly as much to operate as an Arliegh Burke class destroyer---while offering far less in the way of any useful capability.


https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/44...-to-report

Pentagon Acquisition Chief Nominee Argues Navy Needs Larger, More Survivable Fleet

Quote:The nominee for the Pentagon’s top acquisition post told the Senate Armed Services Committee today that the Navy needs a larger and more survivable fleet.

“We need more numbers” when it comes to Navy fleet size and “we want survivable; we want strike” for the future,” William LaPlante, a former assistant secretary of the Air Force, said in his opening statement before the panel on Tuesday. If confirmed to the post, LaPlante said his focus “must be laser-like on [acquiring] speed and scale” through software.

Erik Raven, a long-time Senate Appropriations Committee staffer and the nominee to service as the Navy’s under secretary, said in opening remarks that modernization “means identifying the capabilities that are needed, setting a plan for acquiring them, and working with partners in industry to deliver them efficiently.”

He added later, “the 30-year shipbuilding plan is a signal to industry” of what to expect from the Navy in the way of contracts and mix of ships. But “the force structure assessment is another key element” in determining fleet size. He added the latest assessment is to be “completed in the near future.”

Current Navy fleet size requirement is set at 355 ships; there are 298 ships in the fleet now, according to the service.

The federal budget for Fiscal Year 2023 is slated for release on Monday.

“We learned the lesson from Ford and thankfully we learned the lesson from F-35 … that you have to have mature technology” and realistic cost estimates in big-ticket platforms with hosts of new software, LaPlante said of the Ford-class aircraft carrier program and the F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter.

In written comments, LaPlante added, “my understanding is that there are clear sustainment challenges facing the F-35 program in terms of both readiness and affordability,” with the goal of reducing the high sustainability costs.

He said a good model going forward in these programs would be to look to the Air Force’s B-21 bomber. That program used “open systems that we can upgrade very fast.” The key idea is “we’ve got to these capabilities into those weapons systems” that are in place as quickly as possible for future use.

“We’ve known about modular systems for 20 years” that would allow constant upgrading; they should “always be part of the acquisition process,” LaPlante said.

He later said that ensuring cyber security measures are in place three to four levels down among subcontractors on big-ticket platforms like ships and aircraft is critically important for their survivability in combat.

“Don’t back cyber in,” he said.

Several times Raven was asked about the importance of shipyard infrastructure and its role in readiness. Pointing to the Shipyard Infrastructure Optimization Program (SIOP), he said “this is [a] once in a century bill” that promotes operational and industry readiness.

In written remarks LaPlante said that ‘’understanding the constraints in the supply chain, workforce, capacity and capability of the nation’s ship repair infrastructure is critical to planning effective improvements.”

Both Raven and LaPlante told the committee that COVID-19 has had an impact on shipbuilding and repair schedules in the last two years.

Sen. Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.) pressed Raven on expanding sealift capacity, noting the Chinese have 5,500 ships in its merchant fleet while the United States has 85. Sealift is “key to our warfighting capabilities.” Raven said he would examine adding more ships to American sealift by buying more commercial vessels.

In prepared answers, Raven noted his role in developing a pilot program in the Pacific for Navy work to be done in private yards, which will be expanded to the Atlantic this year. “This pilot program seeks to increase the transparency and flexibility of ship depot maintenance efforts.” Raven added later that one of his goals, if confirmed, “is to build key partnerships” in the joint force, on Capitol Hill, with industry and the communities supporting Navy and Marine Corps installations and activities.

“The need to modernize applies not only to major platforms and breakthrough technologies like hypersonic missiles and artificial intelligence. It also applies to the facilities and infrastructure,” Raven said in his opening remarks.

On those breakthrough technologies, like hypersonics, LaPlante said the Air Force made a mistake in backing away from glide vehicles after two failures more than a decade ago. Several senators noted the service should have continued testing, as the Russian and Chinese did following failures in their hypersonic glide vehicle program.

LaPlante added the Pentagon needed to work more closely with “emerging tech eco-systems” across the country, as those eco-systems have “strong ties to academia.”

In his prepared answers, Raven said, “I believe initiatives and networks such as these are critical in identifying new technologies to the warfighter.”

During the hearing, LaPlante added the Pentagon, however, must “show you there is hope” that the new technology can move from early phases of defense spending into full production.

(03-18-2022 02:32 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Navy looking to retire as many as 10 Freedom class Littoral Combat Ships by 2023---despite the oldest active duty unit being only 7 years old. The big issue is excessive failures in the "combining gear" that allows its gas turbine and traditional diesel engines to combine their thrust to reach the high speeds that were the ships big selling point. The Navy has refused to accept delivery of any more vessels that were built with this flaw. While there is now a "fix" for the combining gear---its expensive and would take years to implement across the fleet of LCS Freedom class vessels.

Turns out, even if the gear is fixed---there other issues---so it looks like the Navy is finally throwing in the towel on the Freedom class as they are complicated to maintain and cost nearly as much to operate as an Arliegh Burke class destroyer---while offering far less in the way of any useful capability.


https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/44...-to-report

Replace them with Italian frigates?

(03-23-2022 06:54 PM)U_of_Elvis Wrote:  

(03-18-2022 02:32 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Navy looking to retire as many as 10 Freedom class Littoral Combat Ships by 2023---despite the oldest active duty unit being only 7 years old. The big issue is excessive failures in the "combining gear" that allows its gas turbine and traditional diesel engines to combine their thrust to reach the high speeds that were the ships big selling point. The Navy has refused to accept delivery of any more vessels that were built with this flaw. While there is now a "fix" for the combining gear---its expensive and would take years to implement across the fleet of LCS Freedom class vessels.

Turns out, even if the gear is fixed---there other issues---so it looks like the Navy is finally throwing in the towel on the Freedom class as they are complicated to maintain and cost nearly as much to operate as an Arliegh Burke class destroyer---while offering far less in the way of any useful capability.


https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/44...-to-report

Replace them with Italian frigates?

Maybe in 10-15 years. There is nothing to replace them with right now. Maybe we can keep some ships longer than we had intended to somewhat offset the loss until the new frigates arrive--but basically---we have 35 LCS's---half of which are the Freedom variant. The Independence variant, that makes up the rest of the LCS fleet apparently doesnt require the fix----but frankly has also failed to deliver much bang for the buck. They are arming it with the Naval Strike Missile so it can at least has a weapon that could sink a peer vessel---but until the modules that it was supposed to use are operational----its just going to be a pretty limited platform. I'd like to see them add a long range autonomous VTOL drone to the vessel like the Bell-247. That would at least make it a dangerous recon/strike vessel that could be very valuable if satellite coverage becomes an early casualty in a peer power war.

In the 1980s the USN grew to 594 ships, with 15 carriers and 15 carrier air wings (CVW) of roughly 90 aircraft each. Today the USN as roughly 300 ships, with 11 carriers and 9 CVWs of roughly 60 aircraft each. That represents decreases of roughly 300 ships, 6 carriers, and 800 carrier-based aircraft. Additionally, the current numbers include close to 50 ships that are basically worthless:
- 35 LCSs
- 2 Ford class aircraft carriers (soon to be 5), for which the aircraft catapults, arresting (recovery) gear, weapons lifts--and toilets--do not work properly
- 9 "large deck amphib" LHA/LHDs (plus 3 future) which can haul a lot of Marines and their equipment from Point A to Point B, but can't get them ashore in a proper amphibious assault

The 1980s numbers are probably close to what would be needed to respond to simultaneous Russian and Chinese threats.

What I would do:
- stop construction on new Fords until they can be converted to conventional cats, traps, lifts, and toilets/urinals; expensive, yes, but doable--we converted the original JFK from nuke to conventional after it was under construction; instead of Fords ($15B each), build future carriers to a mix of Nimitz CVNs ($9B) and something between Midway and Kitty Hawk conventional CV ($5-6B) designs; build up air wings by bringing back or replacing the ASW/patrol S-3s and moving Marine F/A-18s to Navy air wings
- simplify the engines on the LCSs and give them to the Coast Guard
- convert the LHA/LHDs to interim "Lightning Carriers" with F-35Bs until the new Nimitz/Kitty/Midways start hitting the fleet in numbers; operate them in two-carriers carrier battle groups (CVBG); 12 Nimitzes plus 12 Lightnings/Kittys/Midways would yield 12 two-carrier CVBGs, sufficient to dominate worldwide surface and air beyond the reach of land-based air; a Lightning is no match for a Nimitz CVN, but 12 Lightnings alone would give us the strongest naval air force in the world, by a wide margin, even without considering the CVNs

(03-24-2022 01:31 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  In the 1980s the USN grew to 594 ships, with 15 carriers and 15 carrier air wings (CVW) of roughly 90 aircraft each. Today the USN as roughly 300 ships, with 11 carriers and 9 CVWs of roughly 60 aircraft each. That represents decreases of roughly 300 ships, 6 carriers, and 800 carrier-based aircraft. Additionally, the current numbers include close to 50 ships that are basically worthless:
- 35 LCSs
- 2 Ford class aircraft carriers (soon to be 5), for which the aircraft catapults, arresting (recovery) gear, weapons lifts--and toilets--do not work properly
- 9 "large deck amphib" LHA/LHDs (plus 3 future) which can haul a lot of Marines and their equipment from Point A to Point B, but can't get them ashore in a proper amphibious assault

The 1980s numbers are probably close to what would be needed to respond to simultaneous Russian and Chinese threats.

What I would do:
- stop construction on new Fords until they can be converted to conventional cats, traps, lifts, and toilets/urinals; expensive, yes, but doable--we converted the original JFK from nuke to conventional after it was under construction; instead of Fords ($15B each), build future carriers to a mix of Nimitz CVNs ($9B) and something between Midway and Kitty Hawk conventional CV ($5-6B) designs; build up air wings by bringing back or replacing the ASW/patrol S-3s and moving Marine F/A-18s to Navy air wings
- simplify the engines on the LCSs and give them to the Coast Guard
- convert the LHA/LHDs to interim "Lightning Carriers" with F-35Bs until the new Nimitz/Kitty/Midways start hitting the fleet in numbers; operate them in two-carriers carrier battle groups (CVBG); 12 Nimitzes plus 12 Lightnings/Kittys/Midways would yield 12 two-carrier CVBGs, sufficient to dominate worldwide surface and air beyond the reach of land-based air; a Lightning is no match for a Nimitz CVN, but 12 Lightnings alone would give us the strongest naval air force in the world, by a wide margin, even without considering the CVNs

Brandon* hears you and raises with...

Biden* cuts 15 Navy warships in new budget proposal

#LGBFJB

(03-29-2022 11:15 PM)GoodOwl Wrote:  

(03-24-2022 01:31 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  In the 1980s the USN grew to 594 ships, with 15 carriers and 15 carrier air wings (CVW) of roughly 90 aircraft each. Today the USN as roughly 300 ships, with 11 carriers and 9 CVWs of roughly 60 aircraft each. That represents decreases of roughly 300 ships, 6 carriers, and 800 carrier-based aircraft. Additionally, the current numbers include close to 50 ships that are basically worthless:
- 35 LCSs
- 2 Ford class aircraft carriers (soon to be 5), for which the aircraft catapults, arresting (recovery) gear, weapons lifts--and toilets--do not work properly
- 9 "large deck amphib" LHA/LHDs (plus 3 future) which can haul a lot of Marines and their equipment from Point A to Point B, but can't get them ashore in a proper amphibious assault

The 1980s numbers are probably close to what would be needed to respond to simultaneous Russian and Chinese threats.

What I would do:
- stop construction on new Fords until they can be converted to conventional cats, traps, lifts, and toilets/urinals; expensive, yes, but doable--we converted the original JFK from nuke to conventional after it was under construction; instead of Fords ($15B each), build future carriers to a mix of Nimitz CVNs ($9B) and something between Midway and Kitty Hawk conventional CV ($5-6B) designs; build up air wings by bringing back or replacing the ASW/patrol S-3s and moving Marine F/A-18s to Navy air wings
- simplify the engines on the LCSs and give them to the Coast Guard
- convert the LHA/LHDs to interim "Lightning Carriers" with F-35Bs until the new Nimitz/Kitty/Midways start hitting the fleet in numbers; operate them in two-carriers carrier battle groups (CVBG); 12 Nimitzes plus 12 Lightnings/Kittys/Midways would yield 12 two-carrier CVBGs, sufficient to dominate worldwide surface and air beyond the reach of land-based air; a Lightning is no match for a Nimitz CVN, but 12 Lightnings alone would give us the strongest naval air force in the world, by a wide margin, even without considering the CVNs

Brandon* hears you and raises with...

Biden* cuts 15 Navy warships in new budget proposal

#LGBFJB

Biden continuing to sleepwalk through his presidency seemingly oblivious to how policy affects the real world. Im sure he's already off to another nap filled 5 day weekend in Delaware.

Coming soon, the unsinkable RBG!

https://thehill.com/policy/defense/32559...-ginsburg/

(03-31-2022 07:14 PM)Gamenole Wrote:  Coming soon, the unsinkable RBG!

https://thehill.com/policy/defense/32559...-ginsburg/

Itll probably sink just when the Navy needs it most.

Sent from my SM-N975U using Tapatalk

(03-31-2022 07:14 PM)Gamenole Wrote:  Coming soon, the unsinkable RBG!

https://thehill.com/policy/defense/32559...-ginsburg/

Was it built by the White Star Line?

Quote:The Navy, which would be our bulwark in a war with China, more closely resembles a welfare program for defense contractors than a military service.

When combat readiness gets so bad that a liberal Democrat notices, you have problems.

The commander of the Pacific Fleet is saying that his fleet is under maximum stress. As my long-time acquaintance “cdrsalamander” points out, we are at peace. What happens if shooting starts.

The service has created a Diversity, Inclusion, and Equity office in the Pentagon to make sure the correct gender and melanin levels are available in the right places. Women are being pushed into the combat arms in the Army and Marines. They were put there not because of manpower (yes, I said it) shortages but because some hyper woke general officers decided they didn’t care about combat effectiveness or young men and women needlessly dying as much as they cared about being woke. The lie we were forced to parrot was that women would meet the same physical standard for a position as the men. It isn’t true. It was never true.

From

(04-06-2022 11:57 AM)CrimsonPhantom Wrote:  

Quote:The Navy, which would be our bulwark in a war with China, more closely resembles a welfare program for defense contractors than a military service.

When combat readiness gets so bad that a liberal Democrat notices, you have problems.

The commander of the Pacific Fleet is saying that his fleet is under maximum stress. As my long-time acquaintance “cdrsalamander” points out, we are at peace. What happens if shooting starts.

The service has created a Diversity, Inclusion, and Equity office in the Pentagon to make sure the correct gender and melanin levels are available in the right places. Women are being pushed into the combat arms in the Army and Marines. They were put there not because of manpower (yes, I said it) shortages but because some hyper woke general officers decided they didn’t care about combat effectiveness or young men and women needlessly dying as much as they cared about being woke. The lie we were forced to parrot was that women would meet the same physical standard for a position as the men. It isn’t true. It was never true.

From

This is kinda what Ive been saying for a while. We spent a decade building 35 LCS hulls that are relatively useless---but they dont have to be. They CAN be fixed and turned into relatively useful combat vessels that could handle certain duties. They need to fix the Freedom engines (there is a fix available) and get the modules working. These vessels need to have at least 8 to 12 VLS cells added (even 4 would change their abilities substantially) and a long range highly capable drone aircraft like a Bell-247. Smart "1-shot/one kill" shells for the main gun would be nice as well. Do those things and you have a vessel that could be useful in the Pacific, in the Middle East, and around our own shores. The LCS in its present for has virtually no ability to defend itself against a an air attack or even a small corvette or frigate. Its only real defense against a sub is its chopper. Its basically just a overpriced Coast Guard cutter.

Give it VLS cells that can launch cruise missiles and mid-ranged Evolved Sea Sparrow missiles, a long range VTOL drone that can perform recon and strike missions, and smart shells---and youve got a vessel with multiple layers of missile defense that can fire cruise missiles, anti-aircraft missiles, and anti-ship missiles---as well as perform long range recon and strike missions. Yes--its will cost more to fix what should never have been built---but its the only way to keep from falling farther behind while we wait for the next decade of ship building to bring in more capable replacements. These virtually new LCS's will never be great vessels, but they can be made capable enough to free up the more capable Burkes to do other more important duties.

The Navy made a huge mistake with these vessels. Now, its time to fix the mistake as best we can, and move forward.